Meanwhile, the response to the situation by the U.S. mainstream media has been almost as misguided and warped as it was after the Giffords shooting.

Quote:

The American Media Beclowned Themselves Yesterday

Yesterday, as the American consulate in Libya was smoking and the rioters were returning in Egypt, the President of the United States flew off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser while his spokesman was telling the American press corps that yesterday wasn’t really a normal political day. Had it been George W. Bush, the media would, right now, be marching on the White House with pitch forks and torches. Remember, on 9/11, as events were unfolding in Washington, the American media was crying for President Bush to return to Washington. They wanted Daddy at home in the White House where he could tuck them in bed, damn the security issues of getting him there.

I get that Chuck Todd is a former Democrat hill staffer. I get that the Politico is riddled with Democrats, some former activists and a former staffer for Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I get that Michael Scherer from Time magazine is a left wing reporter for Mother Jones and Salon.com turned respectable, “objective” journalist. I get that Ben Smith, leading up Buzz Feed, is a leftwing journalist paraded about as if he is some sort of objective reporter at a trendy site full of cat photos. [Editor's Note: Totally forgot to include Journolist and have updated to include it] I get that precious Ezra Klein started Journolist so reporters and political operatives could collaborate on the news and narrative and now he sits at the Washington Post and gets trotted out as a fact checker. What I really get is that the American media runs with a herd mentality, leans left, and yesterday collectively fell over their group think as they leaned so far left to focus on Mitt Romney and not President Obama. Yesterday, the American media beclowned itself in ways I didn’t really even think was possible, even knowing how in the tank for Barack Obama they are.

Yesterday, we learned that there were no Marines protecting our Ambassador to Libya despite State Department warnings about violence and kidnappings in the Benghazi. We already knew Al Qaeda was coming on strong there. But we relied on locals for support and now we know the locals betrayed us as they have in the past in Afghanistan and Iraq too.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Night before last, the President condemned Mitt Romney in harsher tones than he condemned the rioters. It took him until sun up yesterday to condemn them.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Yesterday, the media spent much time condemning the Coptic Christians for their movie, but we now know the movie had been out for months and we also know the riots were orchestrated in advance. We also know the attack on the American consulate in Libya used the riots as cover for the attack.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, called an American civilian to ask him to stop exercising his first amendment rights.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

We also now know that the President, close to 60% of the time, has opted for printed intelligence briefings, which this White House thinks are as useful as an intelligence officer in the room who the President can probe, prod, challenge, and question.

But the media wanted to focus on Mitt Romney.

And in focusing on Mitt Romney, finally, of all the places, Slate and Dave Weigel finally point out that Mitt Romney’s gaffe was no gaffe, it was a consistent view of foreign policy foreign to the ears of the political press. He, I, and many others really do think Barack Obama is an apologist. We really do think his speech to Cairo after his entrance to the White House was part of a world apology tour. And we sure as hell think his actions in the past year to foster the Arab Spring were the actions of a naive fool.

Islam is a unique poison._________________I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way just to keep Neptune in its daily orbit around the Earth.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.

I think, in this particular occasion, that Islam is not immediately to blame.
I am rather confident that :

Someone draws a cartoon based on the same idea than the one BK suggested but with the entities symbolizing religions replaced by entities symbolizing several european football clubs.
=> Then I am quite sure people will be murdered because of it.

In this particular case, Islam is not immediately to blame. The crowd is. The crowd as being a crowd. The mob !

Only the mob believes that a drawing can actually represent an Idea.

Philosophical systems should not have been given to religions. Religions are based on the mob.

Nolite sanctum dare canibus nec... , et conversi dirumpant vos.

As this was originally written in Latin, I presume that... this is not very new._________________

I don't get why you just don't click the [x] button on the top of your browser if you find an image offensive. You can even hammer the mouse button hard if it really offends you. swear if you like. throw your screen out the window if it pleases you.

The chasm here is quite wide, and while islam is the focus here perhaps it shouldn't be. Religions all over want exemptions for blasphemy, but they have to realize if they make grandiose claims like they are the final word in morality, we MUST not only allow, but actively scrutinize any such claims. satire goes hand in hand with hard thought criticism. that must be accepted.

satire goes hand in hand with hard thought criticism. that must be accepted.

Wrong ! That must not be accepted simply because that just cannot be accepted.
That must be understood !
And that is the biggest problem.
You just cannot make a mob understand whatever._________________

I think this is a question of does bear shit in the woods. I mean if I make a cartoon that mocks islam, and fundamentalists around the world get offended, should I be surprised and outraged? Not saying that they are "right" to be offended, but should I, if I fancy myself being highly-evolved specimen of mankind, be surprised with the result?

If I go to Florida and see an aligator and play with it, and it chews my arm off, is it aligators fault? Aligator is neurologically programmed to do so, the same way a deeply religious person with no capacity for critical thinking is programmed to defend its religion in absurdum. Religious freedoms? Fuck no, if you ask me, but hey, what do I know._________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.

_________________If English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for you!

I think this is a question of does bear shit in the woods. I mean if I make a cartoon that mocks islam, and fundamentalists around the world get offended, should I be surprised and outraged? Not saying that they are "right" to be offended, but should I, if I fancy myself being highly-evolved specimen of mankind, be surprised with the result?

If I go to Florida and see an aligator and play with it, and it chews my arm off, is it aligators fault? Aligator is neurologically programmed to do so, the same way a deeply religious person with no capacity for critical thinking is programmed to defend its religion in absurdum. Religious freedoms? Fuck no, if you ask me, but hey, what do I know.

People are expected to conduct themselves at a higher level than an alligator does.

However, it is an interesting question. You are right: if you go about making cartoons then even though the response to those cartoons is unreasonable, the response was predictable. So, what should be done? You have other problems as well. These people are attacking american embassies and they may not know that the american govt is completely powerless in the control of speech. i.e. they may be completely ignorant of the legal restraints in america. you can see why they may think that would work, since in arab countries the govt can just shut down a newspaper the next day. The other problem is that you have forces who have an interest in this mob violence and throw gas on the flames.

I think this is a question of does bear shit in the woods. I mean if I make a cartoon that mocks islam, and fundamentalists around the world get offended, should I be surprised and outraged? Not saying that they are "right" to be offended, but should I, if I fancy myself being highly-evolved specimen of mankind, be surprised with the result?

The closest most British comedians come to offending Islam is when they make a joke about the lack of a sense of humour in Islam. The reason they don't take it further is because they do not wish to end up like Salman Rushdie, who is lucky in that he has 24 hour protection paid for by the British taxpayer.

So with edgy comedians, everything is fair game except that. Oh and the Russians. It's not because they don't have a sense of humour, it's more to do with what they find funny. And it seems morbidity is a good punchline to a lot of humour I have experienced from the ex-Eastern Bloc countries.

People are expected to conduct themselves at a higher level than an alligator does.

I agree, but it is my observation that strict observance and practice of a religious paradigm leads to the opposite results. It turns people into deterministic automatrons.

I worked briefly at a company whose owner was a deeply religious muslim (he took it as a point of pride to go to Hajj, feast, no rock-n-roll music in car, pray 5 times a day, etc etc). He was highly intelligent and you could see his brain at works when it came to analyzing market, discussing phenomenon that are not observed by Quran. However, as soon as you approached a subject that is touched upon by a religious text, it's like as if his brain just shuts off, and he's on autopilot. It's like self-inflicted brain-washing.

Normal interaction (well, what I would call normal, quite conservative interaction by swedish standards, which was where I lived for past 18 years) got so bad so quick, that I had to quit the job and cut ties.

I guess religion kinda freaks me out in a social setting._________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

We should talk about free speech, we should however also talk about how a dude made an exceptionally bad movie depicting a religious figure - whose followers have proven to be a bit "touchy" about even non-insulting portrayals - as a homosexual, pedophile and all around low life, then released a 14-minute trailer - basically all the insults with the plot cut out - on youtube. A dude that hoped that the resulting riots and deaths would give him enough free marketing so that this steaming pile of crap of a shit movie that not a single person would watch under normal circumstances would turn him a bit of a profit and he can quit his previous hard life of meth-cooking and cheque fraud.

I think no one should be surprised why someone do something. For me it is very random. 'Insults are a very FANTASTIC reason' ?' Care to explain?
What makes things justified, morally, is when someone makes society a disfavour. That should be punished by a torturer from IRS and a notorious one.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I have nothing further to explain. You're part of the problem and nothing will change your mind.

The basic conflict is between two different paradigms, on the one hand you have religious dogma and all the millions living within it, where critical thinking or questioning of the dogma is not only discouraged, but aggressively fought.

On the other hand you have western civilisation, who while imagines itself being christian, or scientific, or capitalist or whatever, and while it may be arguably misguided is characterised by one single attribute and that is a preference of reason and questioning over dogma. Everything else stems from that. But once you forget it, you cannot understand WHY fundamentalists are "touchy", and provoking them serves no purpose except self-promotion.

I have no idea how to bridge that, personally, I did try with people I knew that embraced religious dogma (possibly as a reaction to trauma of war in balkans), but I couldn't do it. Once people embrace dogma, it is very hard to influence them in another direction from the outside, because that dogma also describes such influence as "forces of evil", if you will, and serve as bisarre "proof" that their dogmatic mode is correct.

One way is to leave them be, but is hard when the contagion is spreading. If you look at EU, for example, there is a possibilty that the dogma won't survive contact with european culture, but there is also danger that the european culture won't survive contact with dogma, which is what all the extremist parties in Europe latched onto, arguably in self-promoting purpose.

Since I have come into contact with the dogma, and it was too close, I came to regard it as a sort of "brain virus", but I understand that this is my emotional overreaction._________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

We should talk about free speech, we should however also talk about how a dude made an exceptionally bad movie depicting a religious figure - whose followers have proven to be a bit "touchy" about even non-insulting portrayals - as a homosexual, pedophile and all around low life, then released a 14-minute trailer - basically all the insults with the plot cut out - on youtube. A dude that hoped that the resulting riots and deaths would give him enough free marketing so that this steaming pile of crap of a shit movie that not a single person would watch under normal circumstances would turn him a bit of a profit and he can quit his previous hard life of meth-cooking and cheque fraud.

but why are people biting? the movie looks like a pile of crap, so don't watch it. don't make a big deal. he will get no press and fade into obscurity. Now, the guy is famous.

If a guy came to you and called your wife the ugliest woman he has ever seen in his life, right to her face, in front of you, would you bite? Or not give him the satisfaction to get angry and smash his face in?

It is important to them, that's why they bite. Living by the rules of Islam is what gives life dignity in their view, it's what "separates us from the animals".

If a guy came to you and called your wife the ugliest woman he has ever seen in his life, right to her face, in front of you, would you bite? Or not give him the satisfaction to get angry and smash his face in?

It is important to them, that's why they bite. Living by the rules of Islam is what gives life dignity in their view, it's what "separates us from the animals".

And then mass psychology takes over and the question is moot anyway.

apples and oranges. let me explain.

my wife is a real person with rights and feelings. if a person said that in a threatening way to her face, I will likely respond unkindly. Depending on the specific situation (did he make a youtube video about this in california or did he say so threateningly to her face), a violent response from me may or may not be reasonable, but it would certainly be directed at the right person. I wouldn't go and burn down his embassy or hurt any other persons not involved.

Furthermore, I don't go around claiming that my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world and insist everyone on the planet should accept that and live their lives accordingly. If I did (like some muslims do with muhammed, the quran and morality), I should expect people to call me on it.

Last edited by juniper on Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:06 pm; edited 4 times in total

Furthermore, I don't go around claiming that my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world and everyone on the planet should accept that. If I did (like some muslims do with muhammed, the quran and morality), I should expect people to call me on it, and they may do so in a hurtful way.

I agree with you on this one. If a westerner would talk to you in that manner, it is percieved as intellectual dishonesty (on topic of morality and social relations, not wives). It is a common practice when talking to people to question each others misconceptions, and it is what is giving in a conversation. The characterisation and perception of people as snobbish, pig-headed, open-minded, etc etc is a result of how this exchange progresses. But all of a sudden, we are supposed to throw all of those notions away because we can "insult" someones religious senses?
I can do that, but then I don't feel obliged to treat such individuals as equals, and that very well may be the reason why some immigrants percieve that they are not "accepted" in western societies.

They are, but should expect to be treated no different then anybody else, and once they make outstanding claims, people react to it._________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

We should talk about free speech, we should however also talk about how a dude made an exceptionally bad movie depicting a religious figure - whose followers have proven to be a bit "touchy" about even non-insulting portrayals - as a homosexual, pedophile and all around low life, then released a 14-minute trailer - basically all the insults with the plot cut out - on youtube. A dude that hoped that the resulting riots and deaths would give him enough free marketing so that this steaming pile of crap of a shit movie that not a single person would watch under normal circumstances would turn him a bit of a profit and he can quit his previous hard life of meth-cooking and cheque fraud.

The "pedophile" angle is something that is well documented.

But you make a valuable point.
In order to end the foolish rioting, we must position ourselves as being "touchier" than the Muslim world.
They must not offend us by demanding 7th century values.

Meanwhile, the response to the situation by the U.S. mainstream media has been almost as misguided and warped as it was after the Giffords shooting.

Quote:

The American Media Beclowned Themselves Yesterday

Yesterday, we learned that there were no Marines protecting our Ambassador to Libya despite State Department warnings about violence and kidnappings in the Benghazi. We already knew Al Qaeda was coming on strong there. But we relied on locals for support and now we know the locals betrayed us as they have in the past in Afghanistan and Iraq too.

Yes, the situation is not the same, the point is when somebody degrades something that you value highly, it is silly to expect you to ignore it.

The various taboos in Islam have to be weakened if Muslim countries should be part of the advancing globalization. But you can't bulldozer in and call Mohammed a big faggot who may or may not had sexual relations with a donkey and was a child molester because he had an arranged marriage with a girl that was by some accounts 9 years old. 1400 years ago.

Im convinced that Islam can be pushed into private life as it happened with Christianity in Europe, but it has to happen gradually and voluntarily. It's kind of pointless to criticize one cultural circle whose standards mean nothing to you by the standards of your culture that mean nothing to them. It can't do any good, whatever the goals are, unless those goals are to sell a shit movie or work towards total war between the West and Arab countries.